Manir Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57241 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2017 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Manir Ansari S/o Madish Baitha, R/o Village- Durganagar, P.S.- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SMT. ANITA KUMARI SINGH For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chanpatia P. S. Case No. 243 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner and other co-accused caught the informant and his brother Maheshwar Ojha and the petitioner started snatching bag containing cash of Rs. 26,000/- which was the sale proceed of fertilizer shop and when the informant was not handing over the bag, co-accused Jubair Ansari started assaulting the informant with iron rod and the petitioner gave Daab blow on the head of Maheshwar Ojha, the brother of the informant causing serious injuries and further snatched the bag from the informant containing cash and handed over to co-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57241 of 2017(3) dt.16-01-2018 2/2 accused Dil Kalam. Further Jubair Ansari snatched gold chain and ring, the condition of Maheshwar Ojha is serious and he has been referred to P.M.C.H. in unconscious state. Submission is of false implication and that there is case and counter case, the petitioner is a man of means, there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that Maheshwar Ojha has received grievous injuries vide paragraph 31 of the case diary. Against the petitioner there is specific allegation for assaulting Maheshwar Ojha on his head and also for snatching cash of Rs. 26,000/-.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T